[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming. -------------------------------------------------------------------In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ 2017

--As of January 20, 2017

A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Patrick Caddell calls out the Mainstream Media as the Enemy of America:

Patrick Caddell calls out the Mainstream Media as the Enemy of America: and in many ways, especially as it regards misinformation on behalf of Obama to the detriment and hurt of WE THE PEOPLE (as the United States Constitution calls us as a collective whole), this is so very true.Thank you Patrick Caddell, Democrat, for speaking honestly and boldly...and a Thank You to AIM (Accuracy In Media) http://www.aim.org/ for giving Patrick the platform, and sharing this message with America.

Pat Caddell met with Megyn Kelly at Foxnews and said of his comments at AIM:“We’ve never had a situation where the press has purposefully decided to
pick up a narrative from the White House to not tell people things that
happened in order to support their overwhelming candidate for president,
Barack Obama.... The reason the First Amendment exists without any checks and balances
on the media is because they are supposed to protect the people, that is
the implicit bargain.”

Here is the September 21, 2012 appearance by Pat that has the Conservatives and Moderates of America talking:

PAT CADDELL: Thank you. Glad to be with you. This could take a long
time, but we don’t have that, so let me just get right to this. I
think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms
of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or
not we maintain a free democracy or not. You know, when I first started
in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides,
Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they
were SOBs to everybody. Which is exactly what they should be. They
were unrelenting. Whatever the biases were, they were essentially
equal-opportunity people. That changed in 1980. There’s a lot of
reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush
election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by
ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was
running on the platform of “He will do for America what he did for
Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the
networks is another factor that’s been pointed out to me. Most recently,
what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re
married to people who are in the administration, or in politics,
whatever. But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very
dangerous. We have a First Amendment for one reason. We have a First
Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated
the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order
to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free
press. That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First
Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was
in our process of which there was no checks and balances. We designed a
constitutional system with many checks and balances. The one that had
no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an
implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people
from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to
have the truth. That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for
some time. It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.

This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll
on the trust, how much trust—the Congressman [Lamar Smith] made
reference to an earlier poll—when it comes to reporting the news
accurately, fairly, and fully, and it’s the highest in history. For the
first time, 60% of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at
all.” Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who
believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate,
Republicans were 26%, Independents were 31%. So there is this contempt
for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show
it as well. I want to just use a few examples, because I think we
crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece which was called “The Audacity of Cronyism”
in Breitbart, and my talk today is “The Audacity of Corruption.” What I
pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a
Secret Service detail. A staff member in the White House who is a
senior aide and has a full Secret Service detail, even while on
vacation, and nobody in the press had asked why. That has become more
poignant, as I said, last week, when we discovered that we had an
American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who was without
adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail assigned
to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone to
ask why.

The same thing: I raised the question of David Plouffe. David
Plouffe, who is the White House’s Senior Advisor—and was Obama’s
campaign manager last time, he and [David] Axelrod sort of switched out,
Axelrod going back to Chicago for the campaign—and just after it was
announced that he was coming, an Iranian front group in Nigeria gave him
$100,000 to give two speeches in Nigeria. Now, let me tell you:
There’s nobody that hands—no stranger gives you $100,000 and doesn’t
expect something in return, unless you live in a world that I don’t.
And no one has raised this in the mainstream media. He was on with
George Stephanopoulos, on ABC, a couple of weeks ago, and they were
going through all these questions. No one asked him whatsoever about
that. He was not inquired. George Stephanopoulos, a former advisor to
Bill Clinton—who every morning, while Rahm Emmanuel was Chief of Staff,
had his call with Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, and the three of
them have been doing it for years—and he is held out as a journalist.
He has two platforms. I mean, he’s a political hack masquerading as a
journalist. But when you don’t ask the questions you need to ask of
someone like David Plouffe, who’s going in the White House—when we’re
talking about Iran. I just finishedsurveys, some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now,
and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the
Muslim Brotherhood, what’s happening in the Middle East, and cuts in
defense spending. This is not the place for that, but it strikes me as
the American people identify, in the polling we’ve done over the last
year, Iran as the single greatest danger to the United States. And
here’s a man who’s being paid by an already named front group for
that—for a terrorist regime, and is not asked about it, or queried about
it!

The third thing I would say is that—then there’s of course [National
Security Advisor] Tom Donilon, who I know very well from years back, who
I caused a little bit of a stir over a few months ago when I said he
was the “leaker-in-chief.” I mean this ridiculous running around—“How
did these secrets get out?”—when it is clear he has no credentials for
foreign policy; who has been in the White House; who was a political
operative for Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and others; who was known to
have, in my opinion, to be just the most amoral person I know in
politics; and who is using and orchestrating national security. In Mr.
[David] Sanger’s book [Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power], as a reviewer at [The New York Times]
said, “The hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom
Donilon”—but let me just make a point. Neither does—and I would say
this to the Congressman—“You know, all the Republicans have to do”—you
know, I talk often about the “Corrupt Party” and the “Stupid Party,” but
the Stupid Party couldn’t be stupider when it comes to things like
this. They could have called Tom Donilon and other people down to the
Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had leaked.
Instead you have Eric Holder, who runs the most political Justice
Department since John Mitchell—only in John Mitchell’s administration we
had Justice Departments that were so politicized and so corrupted by
politics—and he appoints someone who gave two people to do a study on
the leaks, sometime in the next century will come out, and one of them
is a, was a contributor to Barack Obama when he was a state Senator.
That’s a really unbiased source! And the press, of course, won’t look
into this. It will not ask the question. But the Republicans could
have called them down. Yes, the President could have extended Executive
Privilege, but let him say “I will not answer that question, sir” on
the question of “Did you leak these secrets that Dianne Feinstein, the
Chairman, the Democratic Chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee
said were endangering national security and American lives?” As she said when she read Sanger’s book, “My God, every page I turn I learn something that I don’t know!” I mean, these are serious matters but in Washington they’re playful, and the press does not pursue any of them.

Peter Schweizer has done a study talking about corruption. 60%, or 80%—it’s
closer to 80% I think, now—of the money given under the stimulus to
green energy projects—the President and this administration’s great
project—has gone to people who are either bundlers or major contributors
to Barack Obama. But nobody says a word. Of course Republicans don’t
raise it because in Washington, they simply want to do it when they get
back in power. And, of course, the press doesn’t because they basically
have taken themselves out of doing their job.
When we see what happened this week in Libya—and when I said I was
more frightened than I’ve ever been, this is true, because I think it’s
one thing that, as they did in 2008, when the mainstream press, the
mainstream media and all the press, jumped on the Obama bandwagon and
made it a moral commitment on their part to help him get elected in a
way that has never happened, whatever the biases in the past. To give
you an example of the difference, I’ll just shortly tell you this: In
1980, when [Jimmy] Carter was running for reelection, the press—even
though 80% of them, after the election, reporters said they voted for
Carter over [Ronald] Reagan, or 70% percent of them, a very high
percentage—they believed, so much, that the Carter campaign and the
Carter White House had abused the Rose Garden against [Ted] Kennedy that
they made a commitment, as they discussed, that they would not serve as
the attack dogs on Reagan for the Carter White House because they
thought it was unfair and they weren’t to be manipulated. I totally
disagree with their analysis, but that was when you actually had a press
corps. Whatever their own personal feelings, they made judgments that
were, “We’re not going to be manipulated.” This press corps serves at
the pleasure of this White House and President, led by people like Ezra
Klein and JournoList, where they plot the stories together. The problem
here is that no one will name names.

But I want to talk about this Libyan thing, because we crossed some
lines here. It’s not about politics. First of all we’ve had nine day of
lies over what happened because they can’t dare say it’s a terrorist
attack, and the press won’t push this. Yesterday there was not a single
piece in The New York Times over the question of Libya. Twenty
American embassies, yesterday, were under attack. None of that is on
the national news. None of it is being pressed in the papers. If a
President of either party—I don’t care whether it was Jimmy Carter or
Bill Clinton or George Bush or Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush—had a
terrorist incident, and got on an airplane after saying something, and
flown off to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, they would have been crucified!
It would have been—it should have been the equivalent, for Barack
Obama, of George Bush’s “flying over Katrina” moment. But nothing was
said at all, and nothing will be said.

It is one thing to bias the news, or have a biased view. It is
another thing to specifically decide that you will not tell the American
people information they have a right to know, and I choose right now,
openly, and this is—if I had more time I’d do all the names for it—but The New York Times, The Washington Post,
or the most important papers that influence the networks, ABC, NBC,
and, to a lesser extent—because CBS has actually been on this story,
partly because the President of Libya appeared on [Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation]
and said, on Sunday, while [U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.] Susan Rice was
out—the U.N. Ambassador has no portfolio on this matter—lying, said of
the Secretary—you know why, notice the Secretary of State wasn’t out
there doing this—was on national television, lying and promoting the
White House line while the Libyan President, the very same moment, is
saying “This is a premeditated attack.” Nobody has asked that
question. This morning—take a look at The New York Times this morning, it’s a minor reference. Oh, now we’ve decided that it was a terrorist incident. But this is—that would have changed, that should change the politics.

This is not without accomplices, because the incompetence of the
[Mitt] Romney campaign, which I said a week ago is the—my God!—the worst
campaign in my lifetime, and the Republican establishment in general’s
inability to fight, has allowed these things to happen in part because
they don’t do it. But I want to go through two other quick points.

[Mohamed] Morsi and Egypt: The President of Egypt, we find out now,
that his whole agenda has been getting the “Blind Sheikh” [Omar
Abdel-Rahman], who’s responsible for the bombings of the World Trade
Center in 1993, out of jail. Prison. I’ve been told specifically, by a
member of the intelligence community that the White House and State
Department are negotiating that now. They have now come out and denied
it, but [Morsi] comes out, that they ordered—he’s the head of the Muslim
Brotherhood! The American people know what they think of the Muslim
Brotherhood: They are against them eleven to one, all right? And he’s
the president of the Muslim Brotherhood, giving $2 billion to United
States. He tells them—we had advance warning because they had said they
were gonna do this, attack our embassy. The President—after the
incident, after 48 hours, Mr. Morsi does nothing and says nothing—picks
up the phone, calls him, and demands that they call it off. On
Friday—last Friday, a week ago today—there was supposed to be a big
demonstration. We thought that would be the big day—no, it disappeared,
because Morsi called it off. But no press person has investigated
this, just as no press person will go and ask the most obvious
questions, when there are really good stories here, good media stories,
and good news stories. They are in the tank and this is a frightening
thing.

Another example has been the polling, which everyone wants to talk to
me about. Look: There is no doubt that Romney is blowing an election
he could not lose, and has done everything he can to lose it. But the
bias, the polling, it’s very complicated. Some of it is error, some of
it is miscalculation, but some of it is deliberate, in my opinion—to
pump up the numbers using 2008 base to give a sense of momentum to the
Obama campaign. When I have polls that have the preference of Democrats
over Republicans higher than it was in 2008, which was a peak
Democratic year, I know I am dealing with a poll that shouldn’t be
reported. And yet they are being done, and they are being done with
that knowledge and with that basis for some people, and the answer, as I
said, some of it is incompetence, some of it is they just don’t know,
really know, how to handle it, and some of it is on purpose, and it’s
purposeful. But all of it is just to serve a basic point, just as
JournoList was—Mr. Klein’s JournoList—but as I said there is no
pushback. We have a political campaign where, to put the best metaphor I
can on it, where the referees on the field are sacking the quarterback
of one team, tripping up their runners, throwing their bodies in front
of blockers, and nobody says anything. The Republicans don’t. The
reason you will lose this battle is for one reason. Despite
organizations like AIM and others who are pointing this out, and the
fact that 60% of the American people are in on the secret here—I mean,
they’re no idiots—Republicans and those candidates who are not the
candidates of the press refuse to call them out. If I were the Romney
campaign I would’ve been doing this for months! I’d have been looking
at individual reporters! I would be telling the American people,
“They’re not trying to stop me; they’re trying to stop you! And they
are here to do this!” And I would have made the press themselves an
issue because, until you do, what happens is, they are given the basic
concession of authenticity and accuracy, or that they are credible, by
not doing that.
Now too many reporters, too many political people in the Republican
party in this town, want to maintain their relationships with the
press. This is how Sarah Palin got handed over to Katie Couric and to
ABC before she was ready—because Steve Schmidt and others want to
preserve their view, their relationships with the press. You know,
people have their own agendas, and often it’s not winning. But this
not-pushing-back is a problem, and they don’t do it. And, you know what
this is a different era: The old argument of “You don’t attack someone
in the press”—or “You don’t get in a pissing match with someone who buys
ink by the barrel”—doesn’t apply anymore. There are too many outlets,
too many ways to do it, and the country doesn’t have the confidence in
the press that they once had.

But all I want to conclude to this is that we face a fundamental
danger here. The fundamental danger is this: I talked about the defense
of the First Amendment. The press’s job is to stand in the ramparts
and protect the liberty and freedom of all of us from a government and
from organized governmental power. When they desert those ramparts and
decide that they will now become active participants, that their job is
not simply to tell you who you may vote for, and who you may not, but,
worse—and this is the danger of the last two weeks—what truth that you
may know, as an American, and what truth you are not allowed to know,
they have, then, made themselves a fundamental threat to the democracy,
and, in my opinion, made themselves the enemy of the American people.
And it is a threat to the very future of this country if that—we allow
this stuff to go on. We have crossed a whole new and frightening slide
on the slippery slope this last two weeks, and it needs to be talked
about. And so that’s as much as I can do in twenty minutes. So then
we—we have a few moments for questions. Yes, sir?

ARONOFF: Let’s get a few questions here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER : Yes, I wanted to offer my interpretation for why
this dynamic is happening. I’d like your reaction. I think that the
media is working with the government, because the government hands out
so many freebies—

CADDELL: Yes.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: —you know, for market share, and, therefore, they
have to work in sync with them in order to ensure the good graces. I
think, also, the advertisers who generate the revenue for the newspapers
are also getting those freebies, and so they can then influence the
media—

CADDELL: The corruption in this town is so great. Everybody in
Washington seems to almost be on the take—with the exception of
everybody in this room, and the assistants here. But, I swear to God,
it’s so—the idea that I should get something, you know—the reason, when
you have firms that have Ed Gillespie in business with Jack Quinn, who
was the counsel for Bill Clinton, and responsible for the pardon of Marc
Rich, among other things, is because everybody in this—those people on K
Street, in both parties, are about arrangements and money. Everyone in
the press is. We have stimulus money being given. We have people who,
as I said, the relationships, when people are making contracts, and
their husbands and wives are getting—Jay Carney’s wife works in the
government! Now he works—he was the head of the Time Magazine!
He was a liar then, and a liar now, apparently! You know—and nobody
says there’s anything wrong with this. And you’re right: Everybody’s on
the take here, and everybody’s cutting up their stock. That’s why,
what used to be one of the best and most important things for the press,
which was the investigative journalism of corruption and money, the
stealing of the taxpayers, the looting of the Treasury, isn’t an issue,
and why no one speaks of it in this town. Yes, sir?

AUDIENCE MEMBER 3: Pat, just a quick question. Is it in
violation—can it be seen as a violation of their charter for the major
networks to demonstrate such obvious bias? I mean, is that a violate
their FCC license agreements?

CADDELL: Well, their license agreements only go to their stations.
They don’t really go to the networks themselves. But I—you see, that’s
why we’re at this slippery slope. This is what scares me. Because you
start saying, “Well, somebody should do something about this.”

My argument, when I speak to the press, is very simple: One day
you’re going to get my combination of George Wallace and Huey Long
running for public office. He’s going to get up and say how—he’s going
to point out “How the press is going to get me, and let me tell you what
they’re going to say about me, because they want to stop me,” and he’s
going to say, “You know what? We’ve gone too far with this First
Amendment stuff. We need to make them serve the people.”
We’re sliding toward a system by establishing the fact that the press,
in fact, has prostituted themselves in the service of a political party,
or a political candidate, and once you go down this road and say,
“That’s happening,” then people say, “Why do we need a First Amendment?
Why should we protect them? They’re not protecting us.” That’s the
threat here. That’s the danger that I worry about, because we
desperately need a real free press, whatever its faults, that protects
the people. And soon, they will be owned by the people—we’re getting
very close to that. Watching the coverage of this stuff, in the last
ten days, on Libya, and the press corps and the networks serving as
nothing but offshoots of the White House Press Office, is really scary.
We’re going to get to this question, because that is down that road.
These people are going to destroy freedom in America. I don’t care
about their partisan preferences, I care that, in the end of the day,
somebody’s going to say, “Enough of this!” And somebody will carry the
day, and that’ll be that. Yes, sir?

AUDIENCE MEMBER 4: Thank you. You—thank you! Incredibly good twenty
minutes! I agree with everything you said! I am very concerned about
Romney’s poor campaign, combined with the media bias the way it is. Is
there anything that Romney can do at this point?

CADDELL: Well, he should’ve been out there already! He should’ve
been out there pushing back—and so should the Republican establishment.
The Republican establishment, as I said, in this town—I mean, all they
seem to be in the business, to me, a lot of the establishment, is
getting a lot of money to line their pockets, and not fighting or doing
things that are effective. Why aren’t they out there challenging this?
Why isn’t Romney himself getting up and saying, “I’m running against
two organizations: I’m running against the Democrats and the President,
and I’m running against the mainstream media, which will not tell you
the truth”? Now let me tell you something: You want to liven up some of
your rallies? That’ll do it. But they don’t do it because this man
dares to be cautious. He’s going to dare-to-be-cautious himself right
out of a race that was his to lose, and he’s losing it.

ARONOFF: One last question. Anybody? Go ahead.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 5: Are there no patriots in the media who—

CADDELL: Oh, yes, there are! There are some.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 5: Do they not see where—

CADDELL: Well, the problem is—let me say this—because nobody raises
the question, because no one raises from the viewpoint that I’m raising
it from. To raise it from the viewpoint where Republicans or
conservatives “We don’t like what you’re doing to us,” only makes them
dismiss that. What is not to be dismissed is what this is doing, and
what it is in terms of the specifics of challenge. These individual
reporters—let me tell you something about the press: Reporters become
reporters and don’t enter the political fray because, basically, they
can’t stand the heat. That’s my experience. You ever watch reporters
under attack in a public venue and so forth? They wilt like—they melt
like ice on the equator. The fact is that they need to be called out.
Their organizations need to be called out. Ezra Klein still writes for The Washington Post?
I mean, this is unbelievable! They had a secret operation group,
“Journo” group, online, coordinating how they would promote Obama, and
how they would attack Republicans—and he’s still there? But nobody
calls out the publisher, or the editor, or whatever—there is no effort
here—or calls him.
The fact is, if I were out there, if I were doing one of these
campaigns, I wouldn’t let one of these guys by with anything. I would
make the fact that the American people, already expressed in the Gallup
poll, say—I would give them all the evidence they need to confirm their
beliefs. I would change the dialogue here. But until that happens,
you’re gonna have two teams—your whole team has an echo chamber of
support—attacking you. How do you ever expect to win? Really? I mean,
you can when it’s the national tide, 1980. We have a different press
now. They have now made the decision they will control the political
process. They are serving—with the hundreds of millions of dollars that
the networks and these newspapers are, in effect, contributing—in-kind
contributions to candidates in the Democratic Party. That’s the legal
issue that I would have been exploring. I mean, I would begin to put
the heat on.

But the Republicans never said a word. When Comcast, which bought
out the administration—they’re my cable company in Charleston, they’re
just so bad, I guess every cable company is awful, but they’re the
worst—buys a network, is allowed to buy a network—the Justice Department
allowed this—no Republican stood up and said, “This should be
stopped!” I mean, really! You get what you ask for. So, anyway, I’ve
got to go. I’ve got to go do TV.

No comments:

Post a Comment

U.S. Natural Born Citizen Defined

To be a United States Natural Born Citizen, he (or she) must be one of sole nationality, so that were he (or she) ever stripped of citizenship in the United States, he (or she) would be declared as “Stateless”.
Neither parent may be of foreign citizenship, and the child must be born 100% within United States jurisdiction and 100% a U.S. Citizen with NO FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP (NOR A CLAIM OF SUCH IN ANY WAY) AT BIRTH.
Anyone acquiring or possessing ANY FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH IS NOT A UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Christian Foundations Lost From U.S. Education

Islamic Terror attacks since 9/11/2001...Why Islam is NOT a religion of "peace".

Followers

This is a Moderated Blog

Any submissions of viewer comments to posts that are clear prevarications, or perceived as intentionally disruptive will not be posted. Those who wish to do more than just comment, but make their case in a reasonable fashion of an opposing view, need to source their posts in factual sources in order to be considered for posting. All moderation is at the sole discretion of the moderator.

Search This Blog

Subscribe To

Psalm for the Day

About Me

A Born-Again Christian Conservative and Fundamentalist. A Republican with a very pro-defense, pro-US Cold War view of politics and the world. I also have, as a non-Jew, a Pro-Israel political and religious position as a born-again Christian Conservative.